Chicago Style Question?

05/25/2011

“Logical Punctuation” and Quotation Marks: In Defense of CMOS

I must admit I was taken aback by David Marsh’s blog post last week at Mind Your Language. In “‘The British Style’? ‘The American Way?’ They Are Not So Different,” he explains that British style for punctuating quotations is not as “logical” as popularly thought.

Am I the only one who didn’t know that not all Brits even agree on this matter? That Radio Times style is not necessarily Guardian or Economist or Telegraph style? True, in all of them a period or comma may follow an end quote (not allowed in American style). But I’ve always thought (not proud of this) that the only determining factor was whether the punctuation was part of the original quotation.

Not so. Turns out it also matters whether the original statement was grammatically complete—an issue often ignored or misstated. Marsh points out the difficulties in identifying for sure what exactly constitutes grammatical completeness, and after some head scratching, he concludes that contrary to portrayals of the British system as “logical,” in fact “there is nothing very logical about it.”

Marsh was responding to confusion he had noticed online, mentioning in particular a recent Slate post by Ben Yagoda, who promotes a simpler method of “logical punctuation” whereby commas and periods fall outside the quotation marks regardless of syntax or original punctuation. (Since Yagoda calls this “the British way,” I’m guessing he missed the same memo I did.)

Yagoda thinks “logical punctuation” will prevail. Perhaps hoping to whip up some controversy, he e-mailed Chicago to ask whether The Chicago Manual of Style would consider adopting it for online prose.

Our e-mailed reply:

As you know, we’re pretty slow to jump in with endorsements or prohibitions when it comes to writing and editing fashions. We have the luxury of several years’ reflection between editions, and we don’t update our guidelines in the meantime. Our practice of having identical styling in print and online seems to work fine for us. Having just launched the 16th edition, we won’t be changing anything soon in CMOS.

That said, we already recommend flexibility in styling for the sake of one’s readers. We publish books by Canadian and British authors, and in each case the manuscript editor decides whether to Americanize the punctuation and spelling or leave them as they are. If an online article or website is likely to be read internationally, that might be reason enough to adopt British-style punctuation. So it’s not like we would throw up our hands in horror. Naturally, we recommend consistency.

Yagoda was what you might call “snowclowning” when he reported our reply as “in essence: ‘How about never? Is never good for you?’” But CMOS got feedback from all directions on it. I don’t know which was more annoying, the flak for our “rigidity” or the high-fiving from kneejerk sticklers.

So this time let me speak for myself: Who wants a style you have to puzzle over or research every time you come to a quotation? Chicago’s styling and Yagoda’s “logical” method are both efficient in their simplicity. In or out: either way, everything will probably work out just fine.

Comments

What I want to know is why American college students nearly uniformly insist on using the British style (much as they uniformly insist on using "he" as the gender-neutral pronoun). Is it part of a curriculum they're all getting in high school?

You're not the only one, Carol, not to know the complexities of British punctuation rules. I've never edited a British work, so I'm unfamiliar with those rules as well. I suspect that's the case for most writers and editors. If you haven't worked in a particular language, why would you know the rules?

I'm all for punctuation rules that are simple, efficient, and logical, be they British, American, or who knows what. If punctuation rules are easier, that gives me more time to deal with other issues and help the author create a work worth publishing.

I'm confused about a word used: Is it "snowclowning" or "snowcloning"? The article link indicates the word is "snowclone". Yes, I use British punctuation in my personal correspondence. I think it looks better not to have a large space between the last letter of the word and the ending quotation mark (but maybe that's just me). Also, in technical writing, there are times when you can't put the period inside the quotation mark, for example, when you're supplying a line of code or data the user needs to input exactly as written -- you don't want the reader to think the period is part of the code.

Okay, I can tell my pun sailed way over the heads of some readers. I believe that Ben Yagoda was "clowning around" with a "snowclone," so I combined those ideas into "snowclowning." Get it? Ouch. I know. Again, my apologies.

Carol, I got your pun, and I liked it! (Somebody had to say it.) I remember that Slate piece, and what irked me was not the idea of adopting so-called "logical" punctuation, but the idea that we might do so just because nobody knows the rules. Following that logic, would we just dispense with "its" vs "it's" and all the rest?

The British system (which I use, being British) is logical: if what's in the quote needs punctuating, then punctuate it (i.e., if it's a complete sentence). The rule is only hard to follow if people quote part-sentences with active verbs, but I think that looks awkward anyway so I don't do it.

So:
John said, "The American punctuation system is the best."
John believes that the American punctuation system is "the best".
John believes that "the best" punctuation system is the American one.

I won't comment on the American system myself because I don't know whether it is being used properly in the examples I see.

Wow, you were clearly misquoted. Shame on Mr. Yagoda! Unfortunately, in your response you mischaracterize logical punctuation as well by implying that punctuation would never go outside the quotation marks.

There are two cases for punctuation and quotes, only one of which differs between logical and american styles. The first case is where one is quoting a sentence or a fragment that contain punctuation:

His reply was "What?". (Everyone's style)

The second case, where the quoted material has no quote, is where things differ.

As she put it, "excellent". (Logical style*)
As she put it, "excellent." (American & apparently British style according to AngrySubEditor).

American style has always rubbed this American the wrong way as I feel strongly that quoted material should never be altered.

*(I am distinguishing between logical style, as elucidated by Mr. Yagoda, and British style, which this post points out has its own complexities)

Thank you for the explanation between the American and British methods of punctuation in quotations.

It's been puzzling me for the last few months after an Idaho university instructor insisted on the APA style for a management class and stated it was the only grammatically correct method. Apparently I learned the British method in elementary school (the instructor was from England) and no other instructor complained even though I wrote numerous papers en route to an MBA.

In the end, I just did the APA style since I was taught to "write to the audience".

It was bound to become a bigger issue now that English speakers everywhere are communicating online. Shall we discuss verb agreement and collective nouns? "My family are coming home for Christmas." "My family is coming home for Christmas."

I am so sick of American punctuation getting such a bad rap. The real logical way to write is the way that will be understood and appreciated by one's readers.

Wikipedia outright banned American punctuation, even on American English articles. It now requires the dumbed-down version of British that you describe. People can ACTUALLY get brought up on AN/I for using American punctuation.

Diana Flynn's comment noting that Wikipedia has banned American-style punctuation answers exactly the question that brings me to the site tonight: Why, oh why, do my students (college undergrads) insist on placing commas and periods after a closing quote, no matter how many times I mark the error (I have a Word macro programmed to red-bold-underline and increase font by 2 pts at the stroke of a key), no matter how many LOL Cat memes I make up to explain the preference. Another thing to blame on Wikipedia! I'm debating either giving up and ignoring the usage entirely or circulating "auto-correct as you type" instructions at the start of the term. Sigh.